Often we hear the phrase, "seeing is believing", however, this is rarely the case. For example, take a look at the picture above. Your sense perception, what you are seeing, tells you that the picture is moving; when in reality, it is standing still. With this information, you are able to reason that the picture above is an optical illusion. However, without seeing the image above, would you have been able to reach this conclusion? On their own, sense perception and reasoning are both unreliable sources of knowledge. However, when combined, they often allow our minds to reach greater findings and confirm (or deny) them.
The older we get, the more we draw on our reasoning as a source of knowledge. This may be due to the fact that we acquire more background knowledge through our experiences through our memories and experiences as we age, or because our senses begin to weaken and fail us as we grow into senior citizens. Inversely, the younger a person is, the more they rely on their sense perception as a source of knowledge because of the lack of past experiences to reflect upon, as well as how much more there is to taken in with your senses when everything in your environment appears new to you. However, relying on sense perception alone is dangerous because of how subjective it is. The associations that one person has with a certain color, smell, or taste may not be the same as that of another person's. Sure, there are general pieces of information that one can derive from sense perception, such as, "red = danger" or "cold = jacket", but it becomes impractical on its own when one is searching for a greater knowledge or solutions. Reason comes into play at this point, as the conclusions that we are able to come to utilize background knowledge and the thought process in general. However, it is necessary to use sense perception to justify that conclusion.
For example, look at the term "scientific theory" or "mathematical theorem". Often theories or theorems (at least the important ones, anyway) are based on a high amount of reasoning and logical thinking that allows one to reach a conclusion. When a theory can't be "proven" it does not necessarily mean that it is wrong, it simply signifies that the conclusion in question cannot be confirmed or denied by means of sense perception. A theory/theorem does not become a "law" until its actions and implications can be seen (and not just necessarily in nature, a mathematical equation may suffice in some cases), felt, heard, smelt, or tasted. People can formulate their conclusions or theories on other theories, but these conclusions do not become working knowledge in the natural world until they are justified by some form of sense perception.
Therefore, on their own, neither sources of knowledge are truly reliable. Reasoning will always run the risk of being untrue on its own, while sense perception reaches conclusions that are too simple and too common to be truly considered "knowledge". When the two sources work together, they are able to create "reliable" and important deductions.
The older we get, the more we draw on our reasoning as a source of knowledge. This may be due to the fact that we acquire more background knowledge through our experiences through our memories and experiences as we age, or because our senses begin to weaken and fail us as we grow into senior citizens. Inversely, the younger a person is, the more they rely on their sense perception as a source of knowledge because of the lack of past experiences to reflect upon, as well as how much more there is to taken in with your senses when everything in your environment appears new to you. However, relying on sense perception alone is dangerous because of how subjective it is. The associations that one person has with a certain color, smell, or taste may not be the same as that of another person's. Sure, there are general pieces of information that one can derive from sense perception, such as, "red = danger" or "cold = jacket", but it becomes impractical on its own when one is searching for a greater knowledge or solutions. Reason comes into play at this point, as the conclusions that we are able to come to utilize background knowledge and the thought process in general. However, it is necessary to use sense perception to justify that conclusion.
For example, look at the term "scientific theory" or "mathematical theorem". Often theories or theorems (at least the important ones, anyway) are based on a high amount of reasoning and logical thinking that allows one to reach a conclusion. When a theory can't be "proven" it does not necessarily mean that it is wrong, it simply signifies that the conclusion in question cannot be confirmed or denied by means of sense perception. A theory/theorem does not become a "law" until its actions and implications can be seen (and not just necessarily in nature, a mathematical equation may suffice in some cases), felt, heard, smelt, or tasted. People can formulate their conclusions or theories on other theories, but these conclusions do not become working knowledge in the natural world until they are justified by some form of sense perception.
Therefore, on their own, neither sources of knowledge are truly reliable. Reasoning will always run the risk of being untrue on its own, while sense perception reaches conclusions that are too simple and too common to be truly considered "knowledge". When the two sources work together, they are able to create "reliable" and important deductions.
No comments:
Post a Comment